State v. Nelson, 932 N.W.2d 101

Jessica Nelson pled guilty to possession with intent to manufacture or deliver methamphetamine (class B felony) and sentencing was postponed to address applicability of a mandatory minimum sentence.
Nelson’s original counsel withdrew before sentencing so she could seek new counsel to consider withdrawing her plea; a public defender was appointed and sought a continuance and a presentence investigation (PSI).
The district court denied the continuance, stated that even if a motion to withdraw the plea had been made it would be denied, and concluded a prior 2012 deferred imposition of sentence qualified to trigger the three-year mandatory minimum under N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-23(1)(a).
The 2012 deferred sentence had been completed and, per N.D.R.Crim.P. 32.1, the guilty plea was withdrawn and the charges dismissed after probation ended.
The Court of Appeals (supreme court here) considered whether a dismissed deferred imposition of sentence may be used to enhance a later sentence and whether the district court erred in refusing additional time for counsel or in pre-judging a plea-withdrawal request.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Nelson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether a completed deferred imposition of sentence that resulted in dismissal can trigger a mandatory-minimum enhancement	A dismissed deferred sentence cannot be used to trigger the mandatory minimum; the prior conviction was dismissed under Rule 32.1	The prior deferred sentence counts as a conviction/plea that may trigger the mandatory minimum	Held: A dismissed deferred imposition of sentence may not be used to enhance a sentence; the court erred in relying on the dismissed case to trigger the mandatory minimum
Whether the district court erred by denying Nelson a continuance and effectively refusing to consider a motion to withdraw her guilty plea	Denial deprived Nelson of adequate time for counsel to prepare and improperly prejudged a potential plea-withdrawal motion	The court had discretion and would have denied any motion to withdraw the plea even if made	Held: Court did not decide plea-withdrawal merits on appeal; remand allows district court to address withdrawal issue; concurrence criticized lack of adequate time for counsel and discouraged prejudging motions

State v. Overholt, 930 N.W.2d 185 (N.D. 2019) (dismissed proceedings alone are insufficient to support modification/penalty without more factual proof)
State v. Ebertz, 782 N.W.2d 350 (N.D. 2010) (under N.D.R.Crim.P. 32.1 a deferred imposition is automatically dismissed after probation unless the court orders otherwise)
State v. Smith, 864 N.W.2d 259 (N.D. 2015) (statutory interpretation is fully reviewable on appeal and sentencing review is limited)
State v. Yost, 855 N.W.2d 829 (N.D. 2014) (defendant has a right to counsel at all critical stages, including sentencing)